ASHLAND CLIMATE AND ENERGY SURVEY RESULTS

Transcription

1 ASHLAND CLIMATE AND ENERGY SURVEY RESULTS FINAL REPORT Geos Institute Southern Oregon University Research Center (SOURCE) 29 December 2016 Marni Koopman, Ph.D. Rikki Pritzlaff Eva Skuratowicz, Ph.D. For more information about this project please contact Dr. Marni Koopman at x303 or You can also visit us online at

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Geos Institute and Southern Oregon University Research Center (SOURCE) conducted a scientific survey of attitudes and actions related to climate change and energy in Ashland, Oregon. The survey is intended to inform the Climate and Energy Action Planning (CEAP) process that is ongoing by the City of Ashland. Surveys were mailed to 2,000 randomly chosen households in Ashland, and 1,078 valid responses were returned. The survey asked questions about respondents attitudes towards climate change, energy upgrades in their homes, energy saving behaviors, and what actions they want to see the City take, if any. The most common upgrades that respondents reported taking in their homes included high efficiency light bulbs, energy efficient windows and appliances, extra caulking and insulation, and low-flow showerheads. Homeowners were more likely than renters to have energy upgrades in their homes. Only 5% of respondents reported having solar electric and 10% reported having solar, tankless, or on-demand hot water. Energy-saving behaviors reported by respondents included recycling, eating local and in-season foods, adjusting the thermostat, buying used goods, and reducing their overall consumption. Few respondents reported that they drive a hybrid or electric car. Survey respondents indicated that some of the barriers to saving energy include the cost of upgrades, inconvenience of alternative transportation, and the fact that they rent instead of own their homes. Respondents stated support for additional actions led by the City for saving energy and combating climate change. Some preferred actions include investment in local renewable energy, electric buses, subsidized solar energy for low-income homes, expanded bus routes and times, and safer bike lanes. Finally, the survey revealed 88% of respondents believe climate change is human-caused and over 76% indicated that immediate action is needed. Most respondents also supported adopting aggressive greenhouse gas emissions targets. Page 1

3 INTRODUCTION The Geos Institute and Southern Oregon University Research Center (SOURCE) conducted a scientific public opinion survey on attitudes towards climate change, energy conservation, and renewable energy. This study was conducted in collaboration with the city-led Climate and Energy Action Planning (CEAP) process. In 2015, Mayor Stromberg appointed an adhoc committee to work with an outside contractor to develop Ashland s CEAP. The results of this Climate and Energy Survey will inform the types of goals, strategies and actions included in the CEAP. The survey also helps Ashland City staff and other groups working to implement the CEAP to develop the appropriate outreach, education, and messaging for local residents. The Geos Institute and SOURCE developed a two-page mail-in survey for Ashland residents. The survey covered a variety of topics, including current actions people are taking in their homes to save energy, existing barriers to saving energy, what kind of action respondents would like the City of Ashland to take, attitudes on climate change, and how aggressive they think the community should be in reducing emissions.

4 METHODOLOGY We used a probability sampling method to randomly choose a sample of 2,000 Ashland residents from a list of 10,090 Ashland household utility customers, and we received 1,078 valid responses. The address list was provided by the City of Ashland. All non-ashland addresses were removed from the list. Surveys were completely anonymous. We did not ask for name, address, or other identifying information on the survey, and we did not track respondents. We sent out a follow up survey approximately 3-4 weeks after the initial mailing, to increase overall returns. A sample of the survey is included in Appendix 1. Five general/demographic questions were asked on the resident survey. The first was whether the resident lives in Ashland year-round. The second was whether they rent or own their home. They were also asked for information on age, gender, and level of education. Answers to these questions helped determine how the sample represented the larger Ashland population. For population statistics, the Ashland, Oregon results from 2015 US Census American Community Survey were used. 1 In terms of gender, the sample reflected the larger population. The survey used an openended category for gender and 57% of respondents reported female, 42% reported male, and 1% reported a non-binary gender identity. The education and age of the respondents, however, did not completely reflect the larger Ashland population. Four percent of respondents have some high school or a high school degree, 17% have some college education, 31% have a 4-year degree, 46% have an advanced degree, and 2% checked other. Comparable numbers for the population are 16% have some high school or a high school degree, 29% have some college education, 29% have a 4-year degree, and 26% have an advanced degree. 1 Page 3

5 Age of the sample was similarly skewed. One percent of respondents fell within the year old category, 5% were 25-34, 18% were 35-54, 23% were 55-64, and 53% were 65 and over. Comparable numbers for the population were 14% in the year old category, 12% in the year old category, 28% in the year old category, 22% in the year old category, and 25% were 65 years old and over. Table 1. Age weighting to enhance representation and reduce response bias with year olds omitted and percentages recalculated. Age Group Pop % Sample % Weight % 4.66% % 18.65% % 23.31% % 53.38% % 100% While age and education are both skewed in our sample as compared to the population, we weighted our sample for age only. Reasons for weighting by age include greater discrepancies between sample and population, especially at the higher end, and a number of the behaviors and actions on the survey were age related such as owning a home versus renting, car usage, and adjusting the thermostat. In the weighting process, we avoided response bias by eliminating the youngest age category (Table 1). This resulted in a final tally of 1,049 valid responses. Page 4

6 RESULTS EXISTING HOME UPGRADES We asked residents what measures they have already taken in their homes to reduce their energy use and/or switch to renewable energy. The most common measures included high efficiency light bulbs, energy efficient windows and appliances, caulking, insulation, and low-flow showerheads (Figure 1). Many respondents indicated that they have additional home conservation features, including radiant heat, passive solar, whole house fans, and a variety of other measures. Numerous respondents provided additional information on water-saving measures in their homes. Figure 1. Percent of respondents who said the following energy-saving features apply to their homes. n = 1,026. Page 5

7 Own versus rent Of all respondents, 69% said that they own their home, while 30% rent. About 1% rent or own a mobile home or another type of space. Homeowners were more likely than renters to respond affirmatively that their home has conservation upgrades (Table 2). Table 2. Home upgrades displayed by home ownership. n = 1,022. Percent of respondents reporting the following upgrades: Home Owners Renters Energy efficient windows 87% 41% CFL/LED light bulbs installed 91% 67% Low-flow showerheads 67% 41% Caulking around windows, doors, outlets, etc. 88% 53% Energy efficient insulation 81% 24% Energy efficient appliances 90% 38% Home energy assessment was done Solar, hybrid, on-demand, or tankless water heater High efficiency furnace or heat pump 30% 6% 13% 4% 54% 11% Electric solar panels installed 7% 1% Page 6

8 ENERGY-SAVING BEHAVIORS In addition to asking about home upgrades, we asked residents what behaviors they use to save energy. Most respondents reported recycling, eating local and in-season foods, adjusting the thermostat, buying used goods, and reducing their overall consumption (Figure 2). In addition, 59% reported tracking their home energy use over time. Many respondents reported additional measures that they take at home to save energy and reduce their impacts on the environment. These included: having a garden conserving water composting volunteering turning off lights when not in use using reusable bags using non-toxic cleaners and pesticides opening windows for natural cooling at night/in morning Recycle everything I can 97 Eat local or in-season foods and produce 79 Lower thermostat in winter (less heat) 76 Increase thermostat in summer (less a/c) 73 Buy used goods when possible 57 Reduce consumpdon 54 Eat less/no meat 46 Avoid driving walk/bike/use public transit 41 Air dry my laundry 35 Drive a hybrid/low emissions vehicle 19 Figure 2. Percent of respondents who take specific actions to reduce their impacts on the environment. n = 1,043. Page 7

9 BARRIERS TO SAVING ENERGY We asked residents what barriers have kept them from having a more energy efficient home (Table 3) and increasing personal action to save energy (Table 4). Respondents were primarily concerned with the cost of improvements, including new energy efficient appliances. In addition, we found that 30% of respondents were hesitant to make upgrades because they rent instead of own their homes. In relation to behaviors, most respondents reported the inconvenience of public transportation or the distances they need to travel as barriers to reducing their impacts on the environment. The extra time needed for energy-saving activities was cited as a barrier. Table 3. Responses to the question What barriers keep you from reducing the environmental impact of the home you live in? n = 1,013. Percent of respondents reporting the following barriers: Home improvements are too expensive 44% I live in a rental home or apartment 30% New appliances are too expensive 18% I don t know what actions to take 14% Solar panels do not fit/work on my roof 13% I do not qualify for incentives 6% Other 14% None 8% I don t think it will make a difference 3% Table 4. Responses to the question What barriers keep you from reducing your impact on the environment? n = 949. Percent of respondents reporting the following barriers: Public transportation is too inconvenient 46% My job/obligations are too far to walk or bike 40% Extra time needed for these activities 29% None 17% Other 14% Too expensive to buy local foods and produce 13% Personal actions don t make a difference 4% I don t know what actions to take 4% Don t know 3% Page 8

10 Many respondents included written comments on the barriers that they experience. Some of the most frequent comments included: solar panels are too expensive payback period is too long monetary savings are too small existing appliances still good respondents might move soon home owners association restrictions upgrades detracting from the historic quality older homes being difficult and expensive to upgrade age and physical limitations the higher cost of behavioral changes lack of motivation to make changes rental restrictions and limitations not enough recycling options Page 9

11 CITY-LED ACTIONS The City of Ashland already leads conservation and renewable energy programs that support both businesses and residents. We asked survey respondents what additional actions or initiatives they would like to see implemented by the city. Numerous actions had very high support from survey respondents, including investment in local renewable energy, electric buses, subsidized solar energy for low-income homes, expanded bus routes and times, and safer bike lanes (Fig. 3). Only 6% of respondents said that the city should not take additional action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with several of those respondents indicating fear of increasing the already high cost of living in Ashland. Many respondents included written comments on the policies or initiatives that they would like the City of Ashland to implement. Some of the most frequent suggestions included: more incentives more/better recycling options assurance that taxes are not increased assistance for renters more education programs solar on public buildings shuttles more efficient building standards Figure 3. Percent of respondents who support the implementation of specific policies and initiatives by the City of Ashland to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. n = 1,006. Page 10

12 ATTITUDES ON CLIMATE CHANGE One of the primary reasons for conducting this survey was to determine how Ashland residents view climate change and whether or not they support aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, a large majority of respondents stated that they believe that climate change is human-caused and that immediate action is needed. Some respondents chose more than one category but still indicated that they believe climate change is human caused. Overall, 88% of respondents believe it is human-caused and 76% think that immediate action is needed (Table 5). Gender Female respondents were more likely to indicate that climate change is humancaused and action needs to be taken (Table 5). However, an overwhelming number of respondents indicated this regardless of gender. Table 5. Views on climate change, by gender. There were 960 responses that both identified gender and answered this question and 1,037 responses total that answered this question. Percent of respondents who think: Male n=385 Female n=564 Nonbinary n=11 Overall n=1,037 Climate change is a hoax 1% 1% 0% 1% Climate change is not human-caused 4% 3% 17% 4% Climate change is human-caused, but it is too late to stop Climate change is human-caused and immediate action is needed 7% 2% 0% 4% 73% 82% 25% 76% Other 3% 2% 0% 3% I don t know 5% 3% 0% 5% Checked multiple categories but indicated climate change is human-caused Checked multiple categories but indicated climate change a hoax or not human-caused 8% 7% 42% 8% 1% 1% 17% 1% Page 11

13 Age and education Respondents with a higher level of education were more likely to state that climate change was human-caused and immediate action is needed (Fig. 4). Only 51% of respondents with high school degrees agreed with this statement while all other education levels indicated 75-79% agreement with this statement. Little variation in attitudes towards climate change was observed among different age groups (Fig. 5). Figure 4.* Percent of respondents reporting their views on climate change, as shown by education level. n = 1,026. *Only single answer responses regarding climate change are shown. Responses with more than one answer or that listed other are not shown, but are included in the total percentages. The one response with less than a high school degree and all education responses that indicated other are not shown. Figure 5.* Percent of respondents reporting their views on climate change, as shown by age category. n = 1,036. *Responses with more than one answer regarding climate change or that listed other are not shown, but are included in the total percentages. Page 12

14 Emissions Targets Survey respondents were asked to indicate where, along a spectrum from no new action to the most aggressive action, their beliefs most closely aligned with the statements in Table 6. Cities that reduce emissions by 100% are considered carbon neutral because emissions are equivalent to carbon sequestration or offsets. Cities that either produce more renewable energy than they consume, or sequester carbon in forests or soils, can become carbon negative. Most respondents supported efforts to become carbon neutral or negative by These are both fairly aggressive targets. Table 6. Where respondents beliefs aligned with the following statements regarding emission reduction goals. n = 950. Percent of respondents supporting the following level of emissions targets: Continue with business as usual. 5% Meet state targets of 75% emissions reductions by 2040 through conservation and renewable energy production. Similar to Fort Collins, CO, reduce emissions by 80% by 2030 through conservation and renewable energy production. Similar to Portland and Seattle, reduce emissions by 100% by 2050 through conservation and renewable energy production. 9% 26% 31% Reduce emissions by 100% AND sell excess energy to other communities by % Page 13

15 CONCLUSIONS The results of the Climate and Energy Survey for Ashland highlight that Ashland residents are already taking numerous measures to save energy in their homes and their everyday lives. In addition, Ashland residents are concerned about climate change and support immediate and aggressive emissions reductions for the city. The very high levels of support for action are good news for the city as the Climate and Energy Action Plan nears completion and moves to implementation. Ashland residents appear to be more tuned in to climate change than the nation or state as a whole. Nationally, 65% of Americans think climate change is human caused, and 64% are very concerned. 2 The state of Oregon generally tracks with national trends on climate opinion. 3 Respondents to our survey indicated a much higher percentage who think that climate change is human caused and immediate action is needed. Interestingly, all age groups are equally concerned about the need for immediate action on climate change, but respondents with an education level beyond high school were more likely to indicate that climate change is human caused and requires immediate action. Ashland City Council will be voting on whether to adopt a city ordinance and the Climate and Energy Action Plan for the city in early This study shows that there is a mandate from local residents to take immediate action and set aggressive goals and targets. In addition to overall attitudes, the survey provided important insights into actions and behaviors that can be addressed to increase efficiency and renewable energy. Many of the comments that were received cited the cost of upgrades as the primary barrier to taking action. The City of Ashland already has extensive programs and incentives that Gallup Poll Howe, P., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J.R., and Leiserowitz, A., Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA, Nature Climate Change. Page 14

16 provide support for home upgrades and renewable energy systems. New approaches may need to be adopted in order to expand incentives and increase effectiveness. Some possible approaches include: Increase in dedicated staff to conduct outreach and education on energy savings. Dedicated staff to seek outside grant funding and other opportunities to promote energy efficiency. New partnerships with non-profits, Jackson County, and/or state agencies that serve vulnerable populations. Existing programs could be tweaked to also provide energy upgrades that improve quality of life and provide monetary savings. Partnerships with local banks to provide more funding options for energy upgrades. City-led weatherization assistance for low-income households and seniors. Creative financing for increasing rooftop solar installments for low- to middleincome households. Very few respondents reported having rooftop solar and/or solar or on-demand hot water. This indicates an area of opportunity for the city to provide additional incentives and outreach to expand these measures to a much higher proportion of households. Many respondents cited limitations with public transportation as a reason that they have not taken action on reducing emissions related to car travel. In this survey and during previous outreach to the public, an Ashland electric bus route has been frequently suggested. Because traffic is a primary contributor to Ashland s greenhouse gas emissions, a city-owned electric bus that serves diverse neighborhoods should be considered. Such a bus could serve tourists as well as residents, thereby also reducing downtown demand for parking and traffic congestion. Another important insight from this study is the need to consider additional approaches to promoting energy and efficiency upgrades for rental properties. A substantial proportion of respondents was renters. Nationally, rental units use more energy per square foot than Page 15

17 owner-occupied homes, and renters pay a higher proportion of their income in energy costs. 4 In response to the Ashland survey, renters were less likely to have homes that are upgraded in all 10 of the categories covered. Because of this, rental properties, and especially older properties, represent a substantial opportunity for reducing energy demand. Research shows that increasing efficiency in rentals can be achieved in three ways - by providing incentives or subsidies to landlords for making improvements, adding regulations that mandate efficiency standards, and/or making energy efficiency and costs more transparent so that tenants can choose more efficient properties. 4 In Ashland, these will need to be weighed against the consideration that rents are already quite high and renters often have little choice due to the tight rental housing market. Energy upgrades are not only important for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They also save residents money, increase comfort and health, and protect people from more extreme conditions associated with climate change. The co-benefits associated with upgrading peoples homes are extensive and include overall community resilience. These co-benefits need to be communicated and considered as decisions are made for where and how to invest in new energy and conservation programs. Acknowledgements This study was funded by grants from the Oregon Community Foundation and Clif Bar, as well as the City of Ashland. Numerous volunteers assisted in preparing the mailings, including Isaac Bevers, Christina Mills, Sarah Lasoff, Davidson Graham, Maile Bennett, and Sophie Dunleavy. Data entry was done by Laurie Hultquist, Lauren Lancaster, Estefani Martinez, Myana Dhenin, and Isaac Bevers. 4 Carliner, M Reducing Energy Costs in Rental Housing. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. Research Brief 13-2.I Page 16

18 Appendix 1. Sample survey Page 17

19 Page 18

20 Appendix 2. Climate and Energy Survey Flyer Page 19

21 Page 20